Jump to content
Bklynracer

U.S. Supreme Court weighs taking up major gun rights case

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

I am hopeful that this will go our way, but I also worry what other nefarious means the likes of Grewal and his ilk can come up with. An obvious one is a expansion of the "sensitive areas" that were carved out in Heller. If they expand that to 5000ft from a school, how much of NYC would be a prohibited area?

We might learn from history. 

I remember reading about when Illinois was forced screaming and kicking into becoming "shall issue" via court action.  IIRC, they tried to throw up a lot of roadblocks and exceeded the deadline to come up with revised legislation during a court mandated "grace period", so they were effectively constitutional carry for a brief period.  I'll see if I can find a good synopsis of what happened.

Edit: Moore v. Madigan was the case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

We might learn from history. 

I remember reading about when Illinois was forced screaming and kicking into becoming "shall issue" via court action.  IIRC, they tried to throw up a lot of roadblocks and exceeded the deadline to come up with revised legislation during a court mandated "grace period", so they were effectively constitutional carry for a brief period.  I'll see if I can find a good synopsis of what happened.

Edit: Moore v. Madigan was the case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan

Hopefully the SCOTUS will be ready for any such shenanigans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

We might learn from history. 

I remember reading about when Illinois was forced screaming and kicking into becoming "shall issue" via court action.  IIRC, they tried to throw up a lot of roadblocks and exceeded the deadline to come up with revised legislation during a court mandated "grace period", so they were effectively constitutional carry for a brief period.  I'll see if I can find a good synopsis of what happened.

Edit: Moore v. Madigan was the case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Madigan

You are telling me, potentially that we can carry “Wild West pimp style” in NJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quikz said:

Yup. One round mags. $2000 heavily restricted """permits""" with 3 month renewals. Full medical exams. 50 unique valid references not to be re-used upon next renewal application. Caliber restrictions to 9mm ONLY. 2 mile distance restrictions from any "govt" bldgs schools and libraries and parks. And all businesses. All smokers are automatically denied permits unless proof of smoking cessation for at least 7 years can be provided and consent to monitor going 'forward'. I am NOT JOKING.

Most of your suggestions are highly unlikely. Mostly because they are shitty, vulnerable ways of being trying to not comply via bureaucratic bullshit. There's already cases to oppose licensing fees related to the second. This would just accelerate them. Medical exams for what? You don't have a constitutional right because you aren't in perfect health? If they tried to hang refusal to grant a license on the status of membership in a protective class, that... won't go well for them unless they can show a very, VERY tight link between compelling need and the rule. Like requiring you to not be blind. The smoking thing would rely on proof of a negative, which you can't do. The "gun free zones" thing would not be radiuses. We've already covered this with regards to guns in the past, and the 1000ft of a school thing lost as functionally equivalent to a ban. 

1 hour ago, CMJeepster said:

Onerous requirements like annual training, qualifications and insurance.

These are more realistic threats. Although given that they have already shut down liability insurance for firearms use in NJ, mandating what they have already banned likely wouldn't go very far in the courts before getting dumped. 

 

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

I am hopeful that this will go our way, but I also worry what other nefarious means the likes of Grewal and his ilk can come up with. An obvious one is a expansion of the "sensitive areas" that were carved out in Heller. If they expand that to 5000ft from a school, how much of NYC would be a prohibited area?

Once again, we've already been there with the 1000ft school zone thing. The court says you have a right to X. Except there is functionally no where you can exercise the right. That's a ban on the right. 

There's much simpler ways than the stupidity above. Simply make being in violation of signage rules a heavy felony and make the signage rules ambiguous. I mean you could carry, but odds are you will go to jail for it. That's a much harder court case. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, silverado427 said:

Gov Murphy - You can't carry if you didn't get your 3 cov-19 shots. :hi:

I already got my limited edition J&J shot. Who knows what the side effects will be later down the road? I might turn into a mutant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a laundry room closet that holds recycling bins. Pre-2010 I used to also have a box where I collected newspapers to bundle. Then I didn't have to bundle anymore. So I emptied the box except for a few in case I needed newspaper for some purpose. The box got shoved all the way to the back and forgotten.

Until yesterday. One of our cats spent the night in the closet, and I checked to see if that box served his purpose at all. It didn't.

But I did unearth this gem from September 6, 2005:

1773506078_RobertsUSSC.thumb.jpg.8c644b3561125e3be50ab39a4973ae8d.jpg:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

Onerous requirements like annual training, qualifications and insurance.

Yes, expect the twice-yearly qualification requirement, JUST LIKE active and retired leos.

And most of us have not had 'use of force' book-learnin' as that is also a statutory requirement here in the PRNJ and would probably NOT go away if the NY case goes our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we'll have supremes added to the court, but considering our current gang's previous decisions/punts, they don't need to add anyone to achieve the desired results of doing so. In other words, I'm more than a tad concerned that they will rule favorably in the event they even take the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 10:29 AM, DirtyDigz said:

I'd place my money on the side of NY State is going to fight this one in SCOTUS.  To "moot" they'd have to become a "shall issue" state.

That's a bridge too far for them.  NYC's previous "moot and boot" was to allow NYC residents to take their handguns outside of the city - that was a much smaller "give" than to essentially make the entire state "shall issue".

I'll agree w ithyou, my moot remark was just a generalized remark more like I'll believe it when I  see it. Waiting to see what actually gets argued in court and expecting a ambiguous victory at best. What I am not expecting is the holy grail of clarification of "shall not infringe". Will the states  be able to create a ccw process so burdensome and expensive (in addition to existing purchase burdens) that for all practical purposes its still a right denied?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are never going to get a "shall not be infringed" strict scrutiny ruling. Ever. Fundamentally every portion of the government believes they have at authority to regulate everything to some degree, and the court is no exception. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, revenger said:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/new-york-city-gun-control-bill-de-blasio/2021/04/27/id/1019138/

 

I think we are going to really see some maneuvering by the anti-americans on this one,    

States Concerned Supreme Court Gun Case Undermines Local Gun Control

Can De Blasio really be such an idiot as to believe that the people perpetrating gun violence in the major cities are applying for carry permits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Old Glock guy said:

States Concerned Supreme Court Gun Case Undermines Local Gun Control

Can De Blasio really be such an idiot as to believe that the people perpetrating gun violence in the major cities are applying for carry permits?

Yes.  Next question.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, always_an_eagle said:

I already got my limited edition J&J shot. Who knows what the side effects will be later down the road? I might turn into a mutant!

That is good news, you will become a protected class and get whatever you want free from the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, raz-0 said:

You are never going to get a "shall not be infringed" strict scrutiny ruling. Ever. Fundamentally every portion of the government believes they have at authority to regulate everything to some degree, and the court is no exception. 

 

 

Just some simple clarifications/guidelines so the state can't go of the rails with requirements. Like if one state's only requirements are age and non prohibited persons vs another state wanting thousands of dollars in fees and training. Its a national right, should be some commonality to its right to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2021 at 3:07 PM, siderman said:

Just some simple clarifications/guidelines so the state can't go of the rails with requirements. Like if one state's only requirements are age and non prohibited persons vs another state wanting thousands of dollars in fees and training. Its a national right, should be some commonality to its right to use.

I agree. Unfortunately we are in the 3rd circuit, and unless Trump's appointees swing it to something sensible, they are operating on a history of ignoring what SCOTUS says with regards to the 2A. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...